What Battlefield 3 needs to steal from Modern Warfare 3, and vice versa

Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 are locked in mortal combat for your first- …

Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 will be very different games that will likely enjoy very different audiences. Still, there is a sense that the two games are in direct competition, and EA's loud-mouthed way of making sure we know it has Activision in its cross-hairs has certainly helped that perception. We may have a personal favorite in this race, but we'll be covering both, and the Call of Duty games have been generally well-reviewed on our virtual pages.

Both games have their strengths and weaknesses, and we have some ideas about what each game could "borrow" from the other. While there are still many details we have yet to learn about both games, this is where each franchise could improve the other.

Battlefield 3 needs to steal Modern Warfare 3's servers

Modern Warfare 3 will allow anyone to download the software to host a server, and you can run one on any machine with a beefy connection. Battlefield 3, on the other hand, will force players to rent servers from approved providers. You won't be able to host your servers, but you can pay others to do so for you.

"The game server machines themselves will be run by a number of Ranked Server Provider (RSP) companies," DICE announced on the official forums. "We do not allow other companies to run game servers, or for other people to run game servers from home." This may seem like a small thing, but if you're part of a community that is already running servers for its own games, it's galling to be forced to pay someone else to host your server—especially when EA is only approving a few companies to rent servers.

Modern Warfare 3 needs to steal Battlefield 3's marketing

We saw the first footage of Modern Warfare 3 at a press event before E3, and the press compared notes after the presentation was over. The response was unanimous: the game looked competent, but so far there was very little to get excited about. Contrast that with the first reveal of Battlefield 3, which consisted of a trailer that was split into pieces before it was released to the public. It showed off the game's use of the Frostbite 2 engine, the improved animation system, and set the tone for the game. The most recent multiplayer trailer is jaw-dropping.

Battlefield 3 multiplayer

It doesn't hurt that Battlefield 3 is more immediately impressive visually, but the editing and clever hooks in these trailers go a long way to getting fans salivating. Modern Warfare 3 seems to be stuck showing the same types of things we've seen in past big-budget war games, and it leads to fatigue. The Battlefield 3 trailers look like they're hyping a game that pushes the genre forward. Modern Warfare 3 could use some of that magic.

Battlefield 3 needs to steal Modern Warfare 3's availability on Steam

Yes, we've already written about this issue, but it's still a major sticking point for PC gamers. Many of us are happily locked into the Steam community and have grown comfortable with the service, while barely anyone can find a nice word for EA's newly launched Origins platform. The biggest question is simple: what do we gain for setting up yet another account at yet another service? Especially one that has seen so much controversy over its End-User License Agreement.

You can buy Battlefield 3 on other services, but with this many members of your community being so vocal with their "Steam or bust" message, why alienate them? You can preorder Modern Warfare 3 on Steam right now, and that's very good news.

Modern Warfare 3 needs to steal Battlefield 3's platform agnosticism

The first time we saw Battlefield 3, it was running on a high-powered PC. The first time we played the game, it was on the PC. The first time it was shown a late-night talk show, it was the PS3 version. You'll get larger servers when you buy the game on PC, and the first expansion pack will be free if you preorder the game. It's also available for every system, so you'll likely have a good experience no matter where you buy it.

Modern Warfare 3, on the other hand, is very much an Xbox 360 game. It's shown off on that system at most events and, like past releases, Microsoft has thrown money at Activision to make sure all the new content will be a timed exclusive on the Xbox 360. Even if PC or PS3 gamers want to pay the $15 asking price for these expansions, they won't be able to when the expansions hit the market. This goes a long way to making everyone who doesn't own the 360 feel like a second-class citizen in this particular game.

Do you know anything about the game PC version of Modern Warfare 3 other than the fact it will support dedicated servers? Me neither. Activision is also historically reluctant to send PC copies of their games to the press for review, meaning there will be little to no coverage of the game on the PC at launch. Activision is a publishing juggernaut that is clearly throwing support and love to the biggest console in the United States, but it's an annoying strategy.

Learn from each other, don't just compete

The two games will be very different, but if the companies involved paid attention to what the other is doing, it could lead to great things. We don't think Modern Warfare 3 needs vehicles, but it would be interesting for EA to pay attention to what drives the passionate Modern Warfare community. I have a feeling it didn't include forcing gamers to leave the services their friends use to game.

I wonder when the viewers spikes are for Ars. Its 7am CST (8 EST) with a gaming story.

It seems that Activision has spread a little love to the PC - I'll most likely pick up both games and fall more to the lines of what my friends play. Both games are entertaining and a blast to play with friends, so in before the fanboys begin screaming. Here's to hoping both sides have learned their lesson on bugs/glitches though, as PC online gaming has morphed into who has the best hacks - and for those of us "noobs" who don't have the slightest idea of how to hack the game (or care to), we're suffering pretty bad...

If MW3 uses the same net/server technology as BlOPs for the 360 (which seems to be getting worse instead of better), count me the hell out!

This is the reason I stopped playing BLOPS and the reason I won't be buying MW3. The 'lag compensation' had gotten so bad that it was determining who won the game...not the players. See the many complaints on their forums about horribly one sided games.

I'll be picking up MW3 because my wife has an easier time picking up and playing that with some success. It's been a good (not great, recent lack of innovation...) series but allows for the flexibility for some good solo play or time spent together playing.

Though I'm not really happy about the Origin mandatory requirement I am willing to give it a fair chance. They altered the EULA (which was a make or break thing with me) so its pretty much on par with steam in that regard.

What I do hope for is that the in game server browser is brought back. They have it for the consoles, why not for its lead platform?

EA needs to take a few notes from steam if it wants to be accepted. The games they produce are good and they have great studios behind them. They can make this work if they dont go the blizzard/activsion route and demand 100% control of their communities and disallow mods/constant online requirements.

A good olive branch to pc gamers would be to do more for the mod community and announce that Origin has an offline mode.

Can you? I thought all bought versions of the game would require Origins to play, regardless of where it was bought. Is that not the case?

Well, you need an Origins account, but you've always needed an extra account to play EA games, even Bad Company 2, if you buy them on other services. I'm not sure how much you'll need to interact with Origins once you have bought the game, though. Remember, you launch the game and then go into Battlelog, which is where you see your friends list and then pick a server to join. My guess is that if you buy the game via another service you just need to log into it with your Origins name and password, but you don't have to launch the client itself.

Someone help me out: no matter where I buy BF3 from, it would require Origin to be installed, correct?

Yes. For example, if you buy it from D2D (and you should, if you don't care about early access to certain weapons that will be released to everyone down the line; they offer 10% off all preorders), you're very likely to get a key to input into Origin. In any case, if you've bought an EA game recently (BC2, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, etc.) you already have an Origin account so you don't need to sign up for anything. Origin was fine for what it was during the Alpha. It was unobtrusive and was mainly a man-in-the-middle for launching the game.

It seems like Battlelog will be THE server browser that will ship with the game. It's a shame because in-game browsers done right are great and as it was in the Alpha, using Battlelog as the sole browser meant that you had to quit the game to join another server. That aside, it was a really solid server browser (arguably better than most games, and infinitely better than any DICE has ever made).

As technically stunning (and a great demo of what my new rig can do) as BF3 looks I probably won't buy it OR MW3. Both titles are the cash grabs of huge companies with very little in terms of true gameplay innovation and pretty much exemplify everything wrong with today's gaming industry.

As technically stunning (and a great demo of what my new rig can do) as BF3 looks I probably won't buy it OR MW3. Both titles are the cash grabs of huge companies with very little in terms of true gameplay innovation and pretty much exemplify everything wrong with today's gaming industry.

So you've played both of them?

Quote:

Yes. For example, if you buy it from D2D (and you should, if you don't care about early access to certain weapons that will be released to everyone down the line; they offer 10% off all preorders), you're very likely to get a key to input into Origin

I'd love to see some evidence backing up this claim. I'm pretty sure you'll be downloading the game from the service you buy it from, and then you'll simply use your existing EA account, which recently became your Origins account, as your login.

Until MW3 stops rewarding those who are winning with game breaking perks and twitch gameplay with spawn area issues, game breaking lag compensation and 10yo kids yelling in chat every epithet since the dawn of man, there's nothing else they can do to get me to buy another MW game.

It's truly disappointing to me how mismanaged the launch of BF3 has become, after how good the marketing started out. The Origin debacle made sure that there's no way I'll be buying BF3. And after that, MW3 showed off Spec Ops which looks like a much more innovative multiplayer experience than BF3's co-op campaign which is essentially just a campaign and one of the AIs happens to be your buddy. Not horrible but certainly done before. The thing that sealed the deal for me was MW3 getting dedicated servers as well as Steamworks support. I loved MW2, but the dedicated server debacle really hurt the PC community for that game.

As for the other commentors that have a problem with BlOPs network code, remember that this is an IW game, not a Treyarch game. In my experience, that means it's much more polished. I've never had a problem with the netcode in a IW CoD game. I can't say the say about Treyarch. That said, who knows what IW will be like now that a decent bit of the top tier tallent has left.

I was a huge, huge fan of BC2, and BF3 so far was pretty amazing (I was lucky enough to get in the closed alpha). As for the CoD series -- well, I thought MW1's campaign was amazing, but MW2 was awful ("GET TO BURGERTOWN!") & Black Ops was mediocre. Also, I absolutely abhor CoD's approach to multiplayer -- random spawns in a giant circle, how is that supposed to be fun?

The only thing I would like to see BF3 learn a bit from the Modern Warfare games on is the weapon upgrade / customization system. That's one area where Bad Company 2 felt a bit lacking. The server hosting... honestly that doesn't bother me at all, anything you should legitimately be able to change about a server, you can in the hosting setup. Oh, and that whole Steam thing -- yeah. I've been looking forward to BF3 more than any other game since it was announced, but I've still yet to preorder. I am not going to play a AAA FPS on console, and I have no interesting in decentralizing my PC gaming from Steam. Here's hoping they find some kind of resolution.

My dream game is if someone took the actual game play from Battlefield's rush maps and combine them with the leveling/perk/party system of Black Ops. The party system in Bad Company 2 was a pain in the behind. I also hated having my friends broken into different squads although the gameplay was solid (exception being the choke-fest Vietnam pack).

I still really enjoy Black Ops although it's an entirely different kind of game. I imagine I'll still be playing Black Ops even after Battlefield 3 is released. EA's trying to make this an either/or argument when it's not. There's plenty of room for both games.

I just hope Battlefield 3 doesn't have the wretched VIP system. You know - the timed on-disc unlocks for different modes of the same maps and how about the "onslaught pack" -- (ie, make them pay for co-op on the same tired old maps).

I guess what I really want - at the end of the day - are new maps for BF1943 But that's a different thread.

I'm sorry but Steam isn't all that great. It sucked big time when it first came out and although it's bette today than it was back then it's still a terrible system. I have problems all the time with it. So the fact that Battlefield 3 isn't going to be on Steam as far as I'm concerned is a good thing.

Also, just like with Steam having all sorts of problems from the beginning, you have to expect problems with Origin. It's new so it's going to have some issues that need to be worked through. Does that mean that it's a good system or that it's better than Steam? No. But since I did give Steam a chance (and continue to do so today just because I play the Call of Duty games) I will also give Origin a chance. I've always liked the Battlefield series as well as the Call of Duty series.

And that's one more thing. The author of this article said that both games will attract different players or something to that effect but I disagree. They're both first person shooters. They're both modern warfare type games. So as far as actually game play there isn't all that much that's different between them so why would they attract different types of players. I love both series of games.

Yes. For example, if you buy it from D2D (and you should, if you don't care about early access to certain weapons that will be released to everyone down the line; they offer 10% off all preorders), you're very likely to get a key to input into Origin

I'd love to see some evidence backing up this claim. I'm pretty sure you'll be downloading the game from the service you buy it from, and then you'll simply use your existing EA account, which recently became your Origins account, as your login.

I'm going by what EA has said that every copy is linked to Origin. You might be right; we won't know until they clear it up. I'm just assuming you'll get a key to input into Origin.

It is linked to Origin, the same way Bad Company 2 required an EA account. They just changed the name of the same login you used back then. There is no evidence that EA will require you to launch Origin to launch Battlelog to launch the game. There is also no evidence that you won't download the game from the service you buy it from. EA has every reason to keep that system in place, in fact, including sharing bandwidth so Origin doesn't get hammered.

Hell, the console versions are going to be "linked to Origin," due to the fact you'll be using your existing EA account to play online.

People are going out of their way to find possible scenarios to not like ahead of time, and it's getting rather silly.

Quote:

It's 2011. I can't believe people still confuse these two simple words.

Did you know that when someone says a sports team "murdered" the other one, no one really dies? Seriously, there's no death at all! I can't believe people have no clue what that word means.

Is this the same sort of bullshit expansion that happened on BF:BC2? Where a couple maps are just released for different modes? Because that's not an expansion, and EA should have been ashamed for making a big deal out of that.

Until MW3 stops rewarding those who are winning with game breaking perks and twitch gameplay with spawn area issues, game breaking lag compensation and 10yo kids yelling in chat every epithet since the dawn of man, there's nothing else they can do to get me to buy another MW game.

ZOMG THERE'S LOUDMOUTH KIDS ON XBL STOP THE PRESSES

I get the other complaints, but seriously that's what the mute button is for, and CoD makes it easier than most to mass-mute idiots. If you're listening to those 10-year-olds, it's because you're doing it wrong.

Quote:

I'm sorry but Steam isn't all that great. It sucked big time when it first came out and although it's bette today than it was back then it's still a terrible system. I have problems all the time with it. So the fact that Battlefield 3 isn't going to be on Steam as far as I'm concerned is a good thing.

Define "problems." Specifically, I'm interested in what kind of "problems" you have that aren't just as likely to occur on Origin.

Also, as long as it's not a Steamworks game (forcing you to use Steam) I don't see how you can call keeping it off Steam for that that do use the service a "good" thing. It's an option, and one you're free not to use. Unless it's just "I don't like this thing, so I'm glad people that do are getting screwed." In which case...well, quit drinking so much haterade.

They're both first person shooters. They're both modern warfare type games. So as far as actually game play there isn't all that much that's different between them so why would they attract different types of players. I love both series of games.

They are way different in game play. Just because they're an FPS doesn't make them the same. Ever played counter-strike? Way different gameplay than any current FPS out there.

It is linked to Origin, the same way Bad Company 2 required an EA account. They just changed the name of the same login you used back then. There is no evidence that EA will require you to launch Origin to launch Battlelog to launch the game. There is also no evidence that you won't download the game from the service you buy it from. EA has every reason to keep that system in place, in fact, including sharing bandwidth so Origin doesn't get hammered.

Hell, the console versions are going to be "linked to Origin," due to the fact you'll be using your existing EA account to play online.

People are going out of their way to find possible scenarios to not like ahead of time, and it's getting rather silly.

I've been defending Origin in these threads for a while because of people jumping the gun. I don't mind Origin. Like I said, it works well enough for what it is, so I don't really care. I'll use it if I have to. I guess I got confused by the wording. I had assumed "linked to Origin" means "run it from Origin". It would have been simpler if they left EA accounts as EA accounts and Origin as just the name of the service rather than renaming the accounts to match it. But again, I don't mind Origin. In a world where RAM is $50 for 8GB, I could care less if it's running in the background. It's not 2005 anymore.

Daros wrote:

"and the first expansion pack will be free if you preorder the game"

Is this the same sort of bullshit expansion that happened on BF:BC2? Where a couple maps are just released for different modes? Because that's not an expansion, and EA should have been ashamed for making a big deal out of that.

They're talking about Back to Karkand, an expansion pack in the vein of BC2: Vietnam. Separate servers, all-new vehicles/weapon kits, etc.

As technically stunning (and a great demo of what my new rig can do) as BF3 looks I probably won't buy it OR MW3. Both titles are the cash grabs of huge companies with very little in terms of true gameplay innovation and pretty much exemplify everything wrong with today's gaming industry.

Oh wow, another enlightened gamer!! That's a surprise. What you are saying is exactly what I've been seeing, feeling, believing, and saying. You stole the words out of my mouth.

Most of the games today have little bit of evolution, much of graphical and technical advancement, but none of innovation or truly meaningful progress that propels the medium as a whole to a more relevant medium.

But I'm a hypocrite. I'll buy this game just because it looks fun to play with 63 other players in one battlefield. I even plan on making a clan and play regularly, just to have fun.

I think part of the problem that is driving some of the silly comments is that EA's faith tank is running a bit on empty, lately. EA can be a very polarizing company, which is a shame because when it comes to the big two, I vastly prefer EA's game catalog compared to Activision. I'll take Battlefield over CoD any day, and EA seems much more open to new IPs (I loved Mirror's Edge, the Dead Space series, etc). Oh, and what was that one series called... oh yeah, Mass Effect.

But for all they do well in terms of product delivery choice, EA likes doesn't seem to realize how some of their decisions constantly frustrate their customers. The Steam issues are frustrating, especially given the recent Origin EULA gaffs. And why would I want to buy DLC direct from them? Getting DLC for Mass Effect is absolutely awful (at least Dragon Age had an in-game menu for it). Hell, even now, it takes me forever to find on BioWare's website where I can actually download my DLC patches. And there was the recent Porsche / Forza Motorsport 4 issue; I don't know a single person who said "Gee, this makes me want to buy Need for Speed, afterall!". Though I do know quite a few who said "Dammit, I am really getting sick of EA."

Regarding some of the comments about the server browser / battlelog / etc -- I was worried about that, too, originally. However, in the Alpha I would actually say it worked out really well and plenty fluid.

It is linked to Origin, the same way Bad Company 2 required an EA account. They just changed the name of the same login you used back then. There is no evidence that EA will require you to launch Origin to launch Battlelog to launch the game. There is also no evidence that you won't download the game from the service you buy it from. EA has every reason to keep that system in place, in fact, including sharing bandwidth so Origin doesn't get hammered.

Hell, the console versions are going to be "linked to Origin," due to the fact you'll be using your existing EA account to play online.

People are going out of their way to find possible scenarios to not like ahead of time, and it's getting rather silly.

I've been defending Origin in these threads for a while because of people jumping the gun. I don't mind Origin. Like I said, it works well enough for what it is, so I don't really care. I'll use it if I have to. I guess I got confused by the wording. I had assumed "linked to Origin" means "run it from Origin". It would have been simpler if they left EA accounts as EA accounts and Origin as just the name of the service rather than renaming the accounts to match it. But again, I don't mind Origin. In a world where RAM is $50 for 8GB, I could care less if it's running in the background. It's not 2005 anymore.

Daros wrote:

"and the first expansion pack will be free if you preorder the game"

Is this the same sort of bullshit expansion that happened on BF:BC2? Where a couple maps are just released for different modes? Because that's not an expansion, and EA should have been ashamed for making a big deal out of that.

They're talking about Back to Karkand, an expansion pack in the vein of BC2: Vietnam. Separate servers, all-new vehicles/weapon kits, etc.

Did you read that somewhere or are you just assuming? I really hope it isn't the same way they implemented Vietnam.

MW1: One of the best games and definitely the best FPS I have ever played. You really had an unparalleled feeling of being in a war with some morally dubious story arks, amazing gameplay in a war-torn country ...

MW2: Amazing artwork (Rio looked so good) and pretty much identical gameplay to MW1 (which is not bad per se). Now for the bad part, totally idiotic and partly not understandable story. You always had the impression that somebody had a couple of cool maps and tried to pierce them somehow together. And they tried their best to kill the great atmosphere of the first one with clownish snowmobile rides etc.

MW3: From the trailer I have seen it looks very similar to 1+2 and they seem to march straight into the clown category with "heavily armored enemies" etc.

Did you read that somewhere or are you just assuming? I really hope it isn't the same way they implemented Vietnam.

I can't point you to an actual article since I'm at work but I'm like 90% sure that's the way it will be from what I've read. It has to be, since not everyone will have it and all the gear is different (meant to emulate BF2's). The downside is that it segregates the community. At least in this case it probably won't lead to a bunch of empty servers, given that these are fun maps the community is proven to like (Wake Island, Sharqi Peninsula, Strike at Karkand and Gulf of Oman)... so long as they didn't change the layouts too much.

I enjoy both games (BLOPS and BFBC2), and I foresee myself enjoying both BF3 and MW3, but it's tough to find time to really get into the multiplayer of both. I probably spent more time on BLOPS multiplayer just because it was faster, and I felt like I was getting more enjoyment out of it when I only had 20 - 30 mins to play. If I knew I had more time for a longer game session, settling into BFBC2 was more rewarding.

I also really enjoy the weapons/attachments/add-ons of BLOPS over what was offered in BFBC2….

If BF3 is as good as it looks, it may suck up most of my gaming time…although I do like the Spec Ops survival mode being offered in MW3.

I get the other complaints, but seriously that's what the mute button is for, and CoD makes it easier than most to mass-mute idiots. If you're listening to those 10-year-olds, it's because you're doing it wrong.

The annoying chat is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Mute = / = different player base. I was just thinking about how much actual, real, tactical information has been passed along in MW's chat channel, and I can probably count the number of times useful information has come through chat on my fingers.

Maybe it's XBL that I played MW2 on, and i've played all my BF games on PC. Is MW's playerbase on PC as lone-wolf moronic as XBL?